cfbd_ratings_sp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it warns that the return shape is unverified and approximate due to lack of a live key, advises inspecting the actual payload, notes that defensive ratings are better when lower, and discloses the API key requirement. These are important behavioral traits that an agent must know to use the tool safely and interpret results correctly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a return shape, a critical caveat, an example, and auth info. Each section earns its place, though it is slightly longer than necessary. The unverified-shape note is essential, and the example is compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by providing an inline return shape and an example. It also covers auth and a key interpretive note. However, it does not clarify what happens when both optional parameters are omitted or when 'team' is provided, and it leaves some return field semantics (e.g., success, explosiveness) unexplained. Overall, it provides enough context for a safe initial call but has minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully describes both parameters ('team' and 'year') with 100% coverage. The description only provides an example using 'year' and does not add new semantics about how team filtering behaves or whether parameters are combinable. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states this tool returns SP+ ratings, a specific predictive rating system for college football, split by offense and defense. This distinguishes it from sibling cfbd_ratings_elo (which covers Elo ratings) and other CFBD tools. The verb 'returns' and resource 'SP+ ratings' are explicit and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for SP+ ratings specifically, and the example shows a typical use case (year-only query). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of cfbd_ratings_elo or other rating tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond requiring an API key. The usage context is implicit rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.